Inhalation of airborne particles is well covered in the references supplied. Nader was not correct in ANY context. Nader is that most harmful of species - a crusading layman.
Would you still prefer one 4 GHz core to four 1 GHz cores if the former had significantly more power drain than the latter? And the former could not do as many ops per second as the latter? We went through this on the desktop. Scaling the speed leads to diminishing returns.
There's this little thing called dilution. The Pacific Ocean contains 622 million cubic km, or 6.22E+17 m^3. You're worried about dumping 5.5E+4 m^3 into that. That's approximately 1/10 part per trillion.
Correct. Plutonium is not only less toxic than dimethyl mercury; it is less toxic than ordinary caffeine. Less toxic than arsenic or cyanide. Much less toxic than botulinus toxin or anthrax spores or ricin. The claim that one atom of plutonium would have any meaningful effect is simply laughable.
During the Manhattan Project, 26 individuals ingested plutonium, each in amounts greater than what is supposed today to be a lethal dose. By 1987, 4 of them had died - however, 10 of 26 random subjects who were adults during WW II would be expected to have died. Only 1 of the 4 died of cancer - 2 or 3 would be expected to have randomly died from cancer.
Ralph Nader's statement that plutonium is "the most toxic substance known to mankind" is only one example of the hideously incorrect and damaging false claims he has spread.
Linux *IS* far superior to Windows 7 on the desktop as well as everywhere else; it's just that most users are too brainwashed and too brain-dead to realize it.
It would be nice if Linux was much better than Windows 7, it's just that for most people, it simply isn't.
All tabs, one after the other? Every single config page called out from a tree selector in a sidebar? The pages that scroll - carefully scroll each one in turn and make repeated screenshots? You're practically guaranteed to leave something out. Then to recreate the same config on another system what do you do? Repeat the entire exhausting process in reverse? When you're done, you're practically guaranteed to have errors because the entire process relies on a human doing tedious work that a script should be doing perfectly every time.
how about taking a screenshot of the gui?
A config file that differentiates between tabs and spaces is an inexcusably badly designed config file. It says nothing about a weakness of the CLI.
Ever see an NFS server not work because the config file had a space instead of a tab?
Correctimundo. Thank you. In general, both logical OR and logical AND can short circuit. In OR, the first true guarantees the whole expression is true, and short circuits further evaluation. In AND, the first false guarantees the whole expression is false, and short circuits further evaluation. The problem is not that I read K&R in 1979; it's that I tend to go too fast putting concepts into words.
Gun-type plutonium bombs. NTI[*] and others seem to think the result would be limited to an extremely low order detonation at best. The US certainly intended to make them and gave up the idea during WW II. NTI uses the term "impossible." I often wondered why you couldn't just raise the velocity of the slug to a high enough value; after all, the gun only has to withstand a single firing! My guess is that the velocity required would be very challenging to create.
"It is impossible to achieve a large nuclear explosion by using plutonium in a gun-type device because the spontaneous neutron release rate is higher and causes predetonation. Nonetheless, a plutonium gun-type bomb could release as much energy as a few tons of TNT, which could conceivably cause many casualties."
It's not fucked up at all; it's well documented, accomplishes an optimization, and provably cannot change the statement's primary result. C is not the only language with that optimization, though the ability to have expressional terms with dramatic side effects in C does make it vital that it is well understood by anyone who uses C.
If such a transparent "workaround" (actually a conspiratorial ruse) changes the entire nature of the bill, it is patently a violation of the Constitution and should get the perpetrators removed from office. I.e., if a bill titled "Bill to require all citizens to pay their taxes twice," and with content do accomplish same as its sole content, were completely erased and rewritten from scratch to make possession of gummi bears punishable by a year in prison as its sole content, such a change is patently unconstitutional, whether or not the bill's title is changed.
Only that there is this little thing called a Constitution which everyone in both chambers swears an oath to "support and defend."
At root, though, you are absolutely correct. All bills, funding or not, have to pass both chambers and the President[*]. Lack of funding literally doesn't have to pass any one of the three. The side which wants the absence of something has the upper hand over the side which wants something.
~~~~~~~~~~
[*] Or have a Presidential veto overruled by a super-majority in both chambers.
Don't you get it? For bills of a funding nature, the Senate has no say whatsoever. Funding legislation must originate in the House (unless our Masters in Washington just continue to ignore the Constitution, which makes all bets off). The House has the power of the purse. Say the House does not fund something. The Senate can't up and originate a bill funding it, and even if they try, it would still have to pass the House (AND the President) before it becomes law. It's a C language compound-or statement. The first term that evaluates false terminates the evaluation with false.
The House has been passing a lot of batshit crazy bills that will never make it out of the Senate.
OK, I looked up "bridge of death pripyat" and found a shitload of pages, all telling an identical story of people standing on a bridge watching the fire from a distance, half of them dying of radiation sickness.
Everybody on that list was on the plant grounds or in a helicopter crash. Every one of them was involved in performing professional services (reactor employees or experts called in, electricians, firemen, security, etc).
Unless someone can document this instead of repeating an apocryphal tale, I'm officially calling bullshit.
Sorry, you've got it wrong. It's a uranium-type gun-type bomb that is dead simple to build and practically foolproof if you've done the elementary physics and workmanship right. The only hard part with that is getting the highly enriched uranium. A plutonium-based implosion-type bomb is another story. The hollow spherical high-explosive lense and the arrangement of synchronized detonators is very, very exacting, and the very specialized grade of krytron tube to set it off just right so it doesn't fizzle.
I'm sorry to have to tell you something that you may be reluctant to believe. In this reactor design the control rods have to be pushed upward from below the reactor. They can't just be passively dropped in from above. I know this little item bowled me over when I heard it.
So you might be well advised to get those rods in there all the way while they still fit, and while you still have power to lift them.
I'm sorry to tell you something that you may be reluctant to believe. In this reactor design the control rods have to be pushed upward from below the reactor. They can't just be passively dropped in from above. I know this little item bowled be over when I heard it.
You've got it exactly backwards. If a core melts down fully into a single mass, the surface area is much less than it is when it is spread out into a large number of separate individually spaced fuel rods. The first thing that happens if a core melts down is that the nuclear fuel pools in a compact mass at the bottom of the reactor vessel itself. Hopefully it doesn't attain criticality there, and hopefully it doesn't burn through the reactor vessel into the containment vessel due to decay heat, and hopefully it doesn't burn through the containment vessel into the environment due to decay heat.
Environmentalist extremism has gone beyond being a mental disorder and progressed to a state of nut cult religion. As such, these weirdos absolutely should have their right to worship protected - right up until it infringes on the rights of others. Hmm, guess that means almost all their cherished objectives are actually CRIMES if implemented by force by the State. That absolutely applies WHETHER OR NOT they are in the majority. Tyranny of the majority (generally, an ignorant and stupid majority, but it would be true even in the case of a genius majority) is the most pernicious kind of tyranny.
Environmentalist extremism has gone beyond being a mental disorder and progressed to a state of nut cult religion. As such, these weirdos absolutely should have their right to worship protected - right up until it infringes on the rights of others. Hmm, guess that means almost all their cherished objectives are actually CRIMES if implemented by force by the State. That absolutely applies WHETHER OR NOT they are in the majority. Tyranny of the majority (generally, an ignorant and stupid majority, but it would be true even in the case of a genius majority) is the most pernicious kind of tyrrany.
The first five year plan, 1928-1933, was the collectivization of agriculture in order to promote a headlong rush to industrialization. It ended in a famine in which millions starved.
The twelfth plan, 1986-1990, was intended to accelerate economic development, which was lagging disastrously after the second through eleventh plans. It ended in an economic crisis so profound and pervasive that it led to the failure of the Soviet system and a breakup of the Soviet Union.
In between, there was mostly persecution, misery, national alcoholism, a sense of hopelessness, and periods of vast premature loss of life. If that is you definition of successful, then yes, the plans were were successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Inhalation of airborne particles is well covered in the references supplied. Nader was not correct in ANY context. Nader is that most harmful of species - a crusading layman.
Would you still prefer one 4 GHz core to four 1 GHz cores if the former had significantly more power drain than the latter? And the former could not do as many ops per second as the latter? We went through this on the desktop. Scaling the speed leads to diminishing returns.
There's this little thing called dilution. The Pacific Ocean contains 622 million cubic km, or 6.22E+17 m^3. You're worried about dumping 5.5E+4 m^3 into that. That's approximately 1/10 part per trillion.
This link had a typo which made it non functional. Here is the correct link:
http://atomicinsights.com/1995/05/how-deadly-plutonium.html
Correct. Plutonium is not only less toxic than dimethyl mercury; it is less toxic than ordinary caffeine. Less toxic than arsenic or cyanide. Much less toxic than botulinus toxin or anthrax spores or ricin. The claim that one atom of plutonium would have any meaningful effect is simply laughable.
During the Manhattan Project, 26 individuals ingested plutonium, each in amounts greater than what is supposed today to be a lethal dose. By 1987, 4 of them had died - however, 10 of 26 random subjects who were adults during WW II would be expected to have died. Only 1 of the 4 died of cancer - 2 or 3 would be expected to have randomly died from cancer.
Ralph Nader's statement that plutonium is "the most toxic substance known to mankind" is only one example of the hideously incorrect and damaging false claims he has spread.
http://atomicinsights.com/1995/05/how-deadly-plutonium.html
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/plutonium.pdf
http://russp.org/BLC-3.html
Google Books: Case Studies in Environmental Science
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html
Linux *IS* far superior to Windows 7 on the desktop as well as everywhere else; it's just that most users are too brainwashed and too brain-dead to realize it.
Your parent fails to comprehend.
What do you mean "we," white man? You don't think embedded software development provides jobs? Very little of it has anything to do with GUIs.
All tabs, one after the other? Every single config page called out from a tree selector in a sidebar? The pages that scroll - carefully scroll each one in turn and make repeated screenshots? You're practically guaranteed to leave something out. Then to recreate the same config on another system what do you do? Repeat the entire exhausting process in reverse? When you're done, you're practically guaranteed to have errors because the entire process relies on a human doing tedious work that a script should be doing perfectly every time.
A config file that differentiates between tabs and spaces is an inexcusably badly designed config file. It says nothing about a weakness of the CLI.
Correctimundo. Thank you. In general, both logical OR and logical AND can short circuit. In OR, the first true guarantees the whole expression is true, and short circuits further evaluation. In AND, the first false guarantees the whole expression is false, and short circuits further evaluation. The problem is not that I read K&R in 1979; it's that I tend to go too fast putting concepts into words.
Thank you. You're correct.
Gun-type plutonium bombs. NTI[*] and others seem to think the result would be limited to an extremely low order detonation at best. The US certainly intended to make them and gave up the idea during WW II. NTI uses the term "impossible." I often wondered why you couldn't just raise the velocity of the slug to a high enough value; after all, the gun only has to withstand a single firing! My guess is that the velocity required would be very challenging to create.
[*] http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/nuctutorial/chapter02_05.html
"It is impossible to achieve a large nuclear explosion by using plutonium in a gun-type device because the spontaneous neutron release rate is higher and causes predetonation. Nonetheless, a plutonium gun-type bomb could release as much energy as a few tons of TNT, which could conceivably cause many casualties."
It's not fucked up at all; it's well documented, accomplishes an optimization, and provably cannot change the statement's primary result. C is not the only language with that optimization, though the ability to have expressional terms with dramatic side effects in C does make it vital that it is well understood by anyone who uses C.
If such a transparent "workaround" (actually a conspiratorial ruse) changes the entire nature of the bill, it is patently a violation of the Constitution and should get the perpetrators removed from office. I.e., if a bill titled "Bill to require all citizens to pay their taxes twice," and with content do accomplish same as its sole content, were completely erased and rewritten from scratch to make possession of gummi bears punishable by a year in prison as its sole content, such a change is patently unconstitutional, whether or not the bill's title is changed.
Only that there is this little thing called a Constitution which everyone in both chambers swears an oath to "support and defend."
At root, though, you are absolutely correct. All bills, funding or not, have to pass both chambers and the President[*]. Lack of funding literally doesn't have to pass any one of the three. The side which wants the absence of something has the upper hand over the side which wants something.
~~~~~~~~~~
[*] Or have a Presidential veto overruled by a super-majority in both chambers.
Don't you get it? For bills of a funding nature, the Senate has no say whatsoever. Funding legislation must originate in the House (unless our Masters in Washington just continue to ignore the Constitution, which makes all bets off). The House has the power of the purse. Say the House does not fund something. The Senate can't up and originate a bill funding it, and even if they try, it would still have to pass the House (AND the President) before it becomes law. It's a C language compound-or statement. The first term that evaluates false terminates the evaluation with false.
OK, I looked up "bridge of death pripyat" and found a shitload of pages, all telling an identical story of people standing on a bridge watching the fire from a distance, half of them dying of radiation sickness.
So how come none of them are listed on the known death toll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
Everybody on that list was on the plant grounds or in a helicopter crash. Every one of them was involved in performing professional services (reactor employees or experts called in, electricians, firemen, security, etc).
Unless someone can document this instead of repeating an apocryphal tale, I'm officially calling bullshit.
Sorry, you've got it wrong. It's a uranium-type gun-type bomb that is dead simple to build and practically foolproof if you've done the elementary physics and workmanship right. The only hard part with that is getting the highly enriched uranium. A plutonium-based implosion-type bomb is another story. The hollow spherical high-explosive lense and the arrangement of synchronized detonators is very, very exacting, and the very specialized grade of krytron tube to set it off just right so it doesn't fizzle.
I'm sorry to have to tell you something that you may be reluctant to believe. In this reactor design the control rods have to be pushed upward from below the reactor. They can't just be passively dropped in from above. I know this little item bowled me over when I heard it.
So you might be well advised to get those rods in there all the way while they still fit, and while you still have power to lift them.
I'm sorry to tell you something that you may be reluctant to believe. In this reactor design the control rods have to be pushed upward from below the reactor. They can't just be passively dropped in from above. I know this little item bowled be over when I heard it.
You've got it exactly backwards. If a core melts down fully into a single mass, the surface area is much less than it is when it is spread out into a large number of separate individually spaced fuel rods. The first thing that happens if a core melts down is that the nuclear fuel pools in a compact mass at the bottom of the reactor vessel itself. Hopefully it doesn't attain criticality there, and hopefully it doesn't burn through the reactor vessel into the containment vessel due to decay heat, and hopefully it doesn't burn through the containment vessel into the environment due to decay heat.
Environmentalist extremism has gone beyond being a mental disorder and progressed to a state of nut cult religion. As such, these weirdos absolutely should have their right to worship protected - right up until it infringes on the rights of others. Hmm, guess that means almost all their cherished objectives are actually CRIMES if implemented by force by the State. That absolutely applies WHETHER OR NOT they are in the majority. Tyranny of the majority (generally, an ignorant and stupid majority, but it would be true even in the case of a genius majority) is the most pernicious kind of tyranny.
Environmentalist extremism has gone beyond being a mental disorder and progressed to a state of nut cult religion. As such, these weirdos absolutely should have their right to worship protected - right up until it infringes on the rights of others. Hmm, guess that means almost all their cherished objectives are actually CRIMES if implemented by force by the State. That absolutely applies WHETHER OR NOT they are in the majority. Tyranny of the majority (generally, an ignorant and stupid majority, but it would be true even in the case of a genius majority) is the most pernicious kind of tyrrany.
In your fantasy they were.
The first five year plan, 1928-1933, was the collectivization of agriculture in order to promote a headlong rush to industrialization. It ended in a famine in which millions starved.
The twelfth plan, 1986-1990, was intended to accelerate economic development, which was lagging disastrously after the second through eleventh plans. It ended in an economic crisis so profound and pervasive that it led to the failure of the Soviet system and a breakup of the Soviet Union.
In between, there was mostly persecution, misery, national alcoholism, a sense of hopelessness, and periods of vast premature loss of life. If that is you definition of successful, then yes, the plans were were successful.
More to the point, it's the difference in life between one month and 8 years.